Link:
https://fakta360.no/2024/12/erik-bye-sin-kamp-mot-uvett-spekulasjonerovergrep-overtro-feilgrep-og-vranglaere/
Please see the link above for the source text.
Erik Bye’s fight against immorality, speculation, abuse, superstition, mistakes, and heresy
Erik Bye
December 18, 2024
Once again, we get an excellent overview of all the bad faith and the hard fronts that have formed in the climate issue from Erik Bye. There are enormous amounts of money and prestige at stake for those involved, but they are time and again undressed and confirmed naked by science when it is used the way science should be used. (editor's note)
Donald Trump has just won the US presidential election for the second time. One of the tasks he has set himself is to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, on which much of the ongoing and highly topical climate discussion is based. As one of the world's largest economies and CO2 emitters, this is expected to have major consequences for the further climate debate in the IPCC, the UN, the EU and all UN member states. The climate issue affects political life throughout the world, so this time is considered suitable for a summary of what has happened since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and up to the next COP meeting (no. 29) to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November 2024. And there is no reason to doubt that Trump will withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement.
By: Erik Bye – The article is an external post and expresses the writer's opinions.
The beginning
It all began with the IPCC's first main report AR1 (FAR) in which the alarm was raised about man-made climate change as a result of fossil CO2 emissions. This was the amount of CO2 that was linked to coal, oil and gas production. It was announced that there was a risk that the global temperature could rise by 4-6˚C. It was only stated, without documentation, that it was important to stay below 2 degrees of warming by 2100, compared to pre-industrial times.
1. One drop is enough
It was pointed out early on that it was completely unlikely that as little as 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere could affect the complex atmosphere, which, among other things, consisted of about 3200 GT CO2. The argument then was that it was like filling a bathtub to the brim. Then a small amount of water would cause it to overflow. And this mechanical model was clearly believed by climate scientists themselves.
2. Be careful
In the period 2005 – 2010, climate scientists talked about how we were acting under uncertainty and that it was important to be “precautionary”. This meant acting in a way that avoided the risk of, among other things, experiencing extreme global warming. With temperatures up to 4-6 degrees above pre-industrial times. And the best example they pointed to, in terms of precaution, was that you insure your house against fire. Everyone hopes it won’t burn, but if it does, you are insured against the ruin. But this example is actually meaningless. In the case of climate, we are talking about something that no one has experienced before. What are we insuring ourselves against? Even Kåre Willoch, of all people, fell for this bluff. He emphasized this time and again with precaution, and the example with house insurance. Gradually, this hopeless narrative died out!
An example of precautionary thinking: https://www.dagsavisen.no/…/klima-loftebrudd-om-fore-var
3. Michael Mann's hockey stick
The most serious fraud in the climate case is undoubtedly Michael Mann's hockey stick. His models have been exposed several times, and each time have shown completely incorrect results. I came across a mention of the Hockey Stick for the first time in Onar Åm's book: "The fight for the climate. In defense of humanity", (2007).
The first edition of the Model came out in 1998. The result of the modeling was, as we have all heard, a temperature curve that went straight up to the sky, like the shaft of a hockey stick, see the picture. There was only one catch to it all, that even random numbers gave the same shape! The model was based on three-ring data, but the model was obviously screwed together incorrectly.
M. Mann corrected his model, but it still gave the same shape. According to the model, the temperature would rise by about 0.04˚C per year, or 4 degrees by 2100. The first revelation was made by statisticians Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre. The two must have obviously suspected that there was more wrong with the model. There was a lot of arguing about publishing data and procedures. When this was done, the two still found that there was a fundamental flaw in the model. The data set used to construct the model, i.e. the calibration, turned out to be used twice, i.e. the data was duplicated in the model. When one set was removed, the hockey stick shape disappeared.
Talk about scientific fraud, and exposed thanks to McKitrick and McIntyre.
Here are some mentions of this criminal story:
● What happened to the hockey stick?
● The IPCC's hockey stick – a disgrace to science
● Global Warming: Paleoclimate / Hockey Stick
And here is probably an attempt to dismiss the revelations of McKitrick and McIntyre: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
But Michael Mann wasn't the type to sit back. He reportedly expressed that he was part of the Nobel Prize in 2007. He supposedly had a Nobel diploma hanging in his office.
Now in retrospect, I would like to warn those who read Bjørn Samset's climate book: "2070 Everything You Wonder About the Climate Crisis, and How We Can Get Past It" (2022). He praises the model, and believes that it and Michael Mann are flawless.
4. Summary for Policymakers
Here the title opens up an unpleasant association, namely that the climate issue is more politics than science. The IPCC prepares main reports that are several thousand pages long, now AR1 – AR6 are available, and they are working on AR7. This is a professional report, a summary of the climate issue as it stands at the time of the report. Anyone who knows how a politician works will know that he or she does not read thousands of pages in a single report. In addition to the volume, politicians of course have no basis for understanding the content of a purely scientific report. Then the material is processed into a concise form, adapted to the politicians. But many positions are reformulated so that they become politically acceptable.
5. Climate myths
One of the tools that climate scientists used to defeat criticism of the IPCC here in Norway was the use of Climate Myths! It was the three-headed troll: CICERO, the Bjerknes Center and the Met Inst. that put together the list of Climate Myths and the first ones were produced in 2008. Here is a list of the Climate Myths that are online now:
● 15 myths about climate change
What the troll never understood was that the climate myths backfired on them, like finely tuned boomerangs. For one thing, the myths helped the Climate Realists hone their arguments. But, the aid to self-destruction was never understood. Here is an example of such a Climate Myth:
"Scientists disagree on whether climate change is man-made"
This is supposed to be a claim that the critics claim. Where climate scientists get this kind of information from is quite incomprehensible. This illustrates the low level of climate myths, and becomes a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is no peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that has supported the "hypothesis" of human-caused climate change as a result of fossil CO2 emissions.
As early as 2009, Arrhenius's heat theory was falsified:
● FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
In 2013, it was shown that the temperature changed before the CO2 level, so CO2 could not be the cause. In this way, the myths were directed at the skeptics, the exact opposite, they hit the climate scientists, without them realizing it. In fact, the myths served as an aid to formulate the skeptics' positions more pointedly, and more aptly against the meaningless message the climate scientists were putting forward.
6. The film of Al Gore and the school
Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" was intended to be used in teaching, including in England. However, after a court ruling, it was decided that this could only be done with the use of a guide. The guide addressed all errors and shortcomings, so that the climate material was presented correctly.
This was clearly not necessary here in Norway. Here the film was warmly welcomed by Minister Djupedal, without any reservations. Here the minister and the bureaucracy appear as a professional unit and recommend a teaching program with obvious errors. This was perhaps an omen, we would encounter a public Norway in the climate issue that was ignorant. And not only that, they lacked the sense of source criticism, and in a school context it is of course a panacea, an uncomfortable truth.
The letter to schools: “The Inconvenient Truth” – a film that will make you wiser. Watch it with your students.
7. Climate in school textbooks
In 2007, climate entered school textbooks, with the same claims used in the daily debate. It would get warmer, wetter and wilder. Tellus 10 was one of the school textbooks that stood out. The book used Michael Mann's hockey stick as an eye-catcher, and the graph showed a temperature that went straight up. Here the reader had to be careful, it could look as if there were real observations that formed the basis for the graph from 2010 to 2100, see the graph in the picture.
And the book made no reservations, the global temperature would increase as a result of the fossil CO2. And the schoolchildren followed the claims of a possible extreme increase in temperature. The fight to save the climate was included in the curriculum:
● Indoctrination about climate in secondary schools
8. The Three-Headed Troll
In 2012, the Climate Realists wanted their Nature Booklet to be used as supporting literature in VGS. The booklet was sent to all Norwegian schools, with a request to use it in teaching. The three institutions CICERO, Bjerkness Center and Met Inst. heard about this. They reacted to the fact that literature was coming into the school that was in opposition to the IPCC's message and what the three institutions perceived as consensus. They therefore sent letters to all the principals at VGS and demanded that the Nature Booklet not be used in teaching. They went so far as to point out that it was not reasonable for outside organizations to contribute to teaching material. And especially not organizations that had views that contradicted the climate view of official Norway. And so it was. The Nature Booklet was rejected as additional literature.
Now, in retrospect, CICERO has gained entry into the school system, and is contributing projects based on the approved official climate vision!
9. Climate awareness in schools
When the climate issue came to the map as a topic in the school system, it was obvious that the teachers did not have the competence to teach. Then a nationwide one-day course was started for teachers in the youth school. This was initiated by the Environment Agency in collaboration with the Education Agency. Siri Kalvig and Kikki Kleiven were given responsibility for the content and implementation. I had the pleasure of being invited to participate, so the report here is based on my own experience. And this was a one-sided presentation of the IPCC's message about CO2 global warming. With a report from a polar explorer's ice experiences and an uncritical dogmatic climate dosage without a critical counter-concept. Typically, the course leaders had not thought to allocate time for questions from the audience, so the whole thing came across as a monologue with a one-sided, uncritical communication of the fear of extreme man-made global warming completely out of control. And they did not skimp on seductive and spectacular effects. Like when Kalvig, on video, had to save himself on land,
with the sea up to his knees and skis on his legs, to avoid an attack by a shark that had become entangled, due to "the warm sea."
This is discussed here: « The school is silent about natural climate change »
10. El Niño 1998
This was a powerful El Niño, as can be seen on Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH graph, see the picture. At that time, there was little knowledge here at home about the ENSO weather system, which occurs along the equator, and consists of a warm phase (El Niño) and a cold phase (La Nina). The phenomenon moves eastward along the equator and consists of an upheaval of warm and cold water in the ocean. If we start with El Niño, the warm phase will be followed by the cold phase, bringing the system back to its starting point. However, in 1998, the phenomenon was used as a result of extreme global warming and that the temperature was heading skyward, out of control. This was rejected by the skeptics, but climate scientists stood their ground. That the ENSO system was a local, temporary temperature change was established somewhat later, see further down here.
11. Sigbjørn Grønås and the records
An interesting manifestation of the belief that the ENSO system led to lasting global changes was the article by Sigbjørn Grønås in 2008: " Rising global temperature - when will a new record be set? "
Here, Grønås emphasizes that if a new record does not come soon, there must be something wrong with the climate models.
So one can make mistakes, and the article probably created some mixed reactions among climate scientists. Something wrong with the models was probably completely unheard of, and a bit unpleasant. It had been noted by others that the climate models failed time and time again, ref KR?
12. The reference that should be removed
During the preparation of AR4, there was a discussion about whether a reference should be dropped from the report's bibliography. The reason was that the reference could create so much discussion and turbulence, and the IPCC would rather not have it. It was Canada that proposed this, which was supported by Norway. This was voted down by the committee, and in retrospect Norway would not continue to support Canada. After a discussion here at home, the delegation had to admit that they had wanted to remove this reference. It was not possible to find out who in the Norwegian delegation had supported Canada. Eystein Jansen was one of the main authors. However, he was not part of the delegation itself. It consisted of bureaucrats, who normally would not have knowledge of individual workers and such consequences. However, Eystein Jansen flatly denied being the main man behind this highly peculiar move. Climate realists did a lot to find out about this, such a procedure was considered a professional abuse. However, SFT, which at the time was responsible for the administration of the delegations to these AR meetings, completely refused to open up about this episode.
13. Climate goals without documentation
The climate goals are a central concept in the climate issue. They emerged in earnest in the debate after the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. At that time, it was proposed by politicians that we had to stay below a temperature increase of 2˚C, otherwise our entire climate system would get out of control. There are two fundamental conditions that must be emphasized here: 1. The climate goals are political inventions, pushed forward during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. 2. The climate goals have no scientific justification, they are almost numbers pulled straight out of thin air. This is clearly evident in the interview with Eystein Jansen, former director of the Bjerknes Center at UiB:
● We don't have time to wait for technology. Here is a review of the introduction, use, and the lack of documentation:
● The 2 degree target is a political bluff
14. The Senior Case
In the cases that have been mentioned so far, the debate has been issue-oriented, and any harassment of the Climate Realists has come as an unpleasant part of the argument. However, we have some cases where climate scientists have almost gone at the throat of their opponents. The most extreme case is probably Bjørn Samset, CICERO, together with Kjetil Svensen, who in MORGENBLADET openly attacked some of the members of the Climate Realists. This happened in the article " The Senior Case " : He launched a direct personal attack because the Climate Realists consisted of experienced, highly competent scientists well into their years, estimated to be 55 – 70 years old. This concerned Jan-Erik Solheim, Ole Hernrik Ellestad and Ole Humlum. Samset believed that they were not keeping up with the development of the profession and that they should not be concerned with the climate issue. He pointed out in particular that they had their education from a time when they were not able to study complex systems, with several variables. This is in contrast to Samset's generation. Based on the scientific experience and competence of the older gentlemen within their subjects, such statements are completely unreasonable. He
went so far as to accuse the experienced experts of representing destructive elements in their environments at the University. Where Samset got this from is highly unclear. In addition, questions can be raised about the competence Samset has to assess the characteristics and personality of professionals.
In conclusion, he claims that Climate Realists have a personality that means they don't come forward until they have consumed some alcohol. This sounds like a purely conspiratorial statement from me, but from the article I can quote:
"Scientists we know as highly skilled and nuanced, even world leaders in their fields, surprisingly often expose a fundamental climate skepticism when the opportunity arises. The skepticism often appears in informal situations, and after consuming alcohol units. A beer or two lowers inhibitions, and at the same time awakens the need to discuss. Parties with colleagues from other research fields rarely proceed without at least one existential climate discussion."
Bjørn Samset is now a senior researcher at CICERO, has been designated as lead author of the main report AR7, WG1. In addition, he has been the state's official spokesperson on NRK, on climate issues, risk and future threats for the last five years.
15. Black Per and the Civil Servants Act
One of the other Norwegian climate scientists who is known for going at the throat of his opponents is Rasmus Benestad. Funnily enough, the same pattern was at the bottom here, the climate scientist who goes on to personally attack three opponents. The case starts here:
● The 'black-Per' of the climate debate creates a dilemma
This time it is Pål Brekke, Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Henrik Ellestad who are being attacked. Unlike now, at that time there was ample opportunity to debate in the weekly press, and then it was Dagsavisen Nye Meninger that was the arena. This attack on the Climate Realists was perceived so
seriously that Rasmus Benestad was reported for work zeal by Ole Henrik Elkestsd and me. My letter of complaint is reproduced in the pictures.
I didn't hear anything from the employer, so we don't know the outcome of the complaint. But the case was followed up in Dagsavisen:
● First by Benestad: What is good enough documentation?
● Then by me in two posts: This is embarrassing, Rasmus Benestad! and
● Less freedom of speech for government employees?
A somewhat curious detail here was that Benestad believed he was free to write whatever he wanted as a civil servant, when he did it in his spare time. What he did not know was the long arm of the Civil Service Act, with the following provisions:
Civil Servants Act
Quote for the long arm of the law:
§ 14.Ordinary penalties.1
1. A civil servant who is not a judge,2 or an official who is not subject to another disciplinary authority by law, may be imposed a disciplinary penalty for:
a. breach of duty or failure to fulfill duty
b. improper conduct in or outside the service that damages the respect or trust necessary for the position.
2. As a disciplinary penalty, a civil servant or public servant may be given a written reprimand, or loss of seniority from one month to two years.
An official may also be demoted to a lower position as a disciplinary measure, either permanently or for a limited period of time.
A general disciplinary action is not a disciplinary punishment.
3. Disciplinary punishments are recorded on the record book or personnel card. It is determined by regulation4 when the remark is to be deleted.
Anyone can request a printout of their criminal record or personnel card.
The law is clear, you must behave appropriately 24/7.
16. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
This is probably one of the atmospheric variables with the greatest variation in the estimate of its size. It varies from about 4 years to thousands of years! How is that possible? Let it be said right away, it is the Climate Realists who operate with the shortest residence time and the climate scaremongers who believe in an almost eternal life in the atmosphere for the CO2 molecules. The Nature booklet of the Climate Realists states a 4-year residence time, where 1/4 is replaced every year, and thus the entire atmosphere's CO2
content is replaced in four years. What kind of documentation is there for this size? 5 years is consistently stated as a residence time.
● Here is a post in the debate: The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere From sober sources, 5 years is stated as the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that those who talk about a residence time of thousands of years are out to scare. A Google search returned 5 years as the answer, as shown in the image below. Another question is what it would mean if the CO2 molecules stayed in the atmosphere for a long time, as long as the increase follows the normal increase, which we have had since approx. from 1930?
17. 0.33 hen turned into 97 chickens!
In 2010, a wholehearted attempt was made to deceive the entire world population about support for the IPCC on climate change. In retrospect, this is probably among the biggest scientific frauds ever committed on climate change.
In short, Cook et al. reviewed 12,000 scientific articles to find the proportion that agreed with the IPCC's view of global warming and human-caused climate change. They found that 97% of the articles supported the IPCC! Quite impressive!
It was just that Cook et al. had processed the data in such a way that they got a 97% response, where the correct number was 0.3%. What is the background to such a fraud, and a scientific suicide? Here is a summary of the work of Cook et al.: Consensus: How 0.3% becomes 97%
The work of the IPCC, which was established in 1988, has been widely criticized. In 2011, it was decided that the IPCC would be evaluated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council). This is discussed here, under the subtitle: 18. The IPCC was controlled by the IAC
But despite all the weaknesses that were revealed in the IAC review, there are two cases that, professionally speaking, in a negative sense, stand far above the others. They are the Hockey stick of Mann and the 97% of Cook et al. The works of M. Mann and Cook et al. are pure criminal fraud, done
knowingly and intentionally, to mislead an entire world. It is a criminal fraud that should have been handled by a court of law!
I wrote, with a sidelong glance, about a Climate Court in my time. Certain scientific manipulations should probably have been prosecuted: " The Climate Court "
18. The IPCC was controlled by the IAC
The IPCC was established in 1988, the first three main reports: FAR, SAR and TAR came in 1992, 1995 and 2001. At this point, everything was relatively quiet. But in 2007 something happened that turned up the temperature, literally. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the UN and Al Gore, for their efforts in climate work. Doomsday prophecies began to appear. We would never see snow again, the North Pole would be ice-free in 2015 and Michael Mann's hockey stick told us that the temperature was out of control.
The award must have gone completely to the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri. He promoted the IPCC, climate science, the competence of the lead authors, the administrative routines and quality requirements of the climate panel and the requirement to only use articles that had been refereed. This was supposed to guarantee the highest quality that could be achieved. It was just that the whole thing was a play, a fool's game. As lead authors they had people who had not completed their education, and were far from the quality stamp in the form of a Ph. D. degree. According to Pachauri, he had the world's top scientists in his ranks!
Critical examinations showed that parts of the documentation did not meet the standards, both outdoor magazines and shoe brochures were found in the bibliographies! It gradually emerged that critical comments on the draft reports were dismissed without any other justification than that the comments contradicted the scientific consensus, i.e. the IPCC's view. Closer examination of the bibliographies showed that critical articles were mostly omitted. In the case of the malaria issue, it turned out that the health specialist in question had no expertise in malaria at all. The weaknesses of
the iPCC are thoroughly analyzed and discussed in Donna Laframboise's book:
"The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top limate Expert" (2011).
This has also been translated into Norwegian by the Climate Realists:
"The puffed-up teenager who was mistaken to be the world's top climate expert" (2011).
It was ultimately decided that the IPCC would have to undergo a review, conducted by the IAC (InterAcademic Council), with a final report in 2013.
Here is an overview of errors and shortcomings:
● https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipc c reforms.pdf
Part of a brief summary is shown in Figure 6, taken from this link:
● https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC report/IAC recommendation sum mary.pdf
Here are some other relevant links to the evaluation:
● https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization review.shtml
● https://scnat.ch/en/uuid/i/492a9a3f-56d4-5818-a4ec-8a2e6aade797 -Evaluation of the procedures to conduct IPCC assessment rep orts
● https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC report/IAC%20Report.pdf
19. Geoengineering
Around 2015, spectacular solutions were proposed to reduce global temperatures. One of these was to spread a fine particulate aerosol high in the atmosphere that would absorb radiation reaching the Earth, thus reducing the temperature. Does it sound spectacular, a bit unrealistic, and a bit of a challenging risk due to the side effects of increased particle content in the atmosphere? Anyway, for the most climate-conscious, this was considered realistic, although outlined as a plan B. The idea was to use
aircraft to spread the particles high up. But what kind of particles would be spread? The health risk of increased numbers of particles in the atmosphere was already there.
In a radio interview, Bjørn Samset suggested: titanium dioxide, they were inert according to him. That is, they were very reactive, and were used as control material in cell and animal experiments, for testing toxicological effects. It's just that Bjørn Samset had not been paying attention in class here. Perhaps not so strange, when toxicology is far from particle physics and atmospheric climate phenomena. More recent research had shown that TiO2 was not inactive at all. Finer particles, in nano-size, showed toxic properties in cell experiments. Then it was the end of life as a control substance, and sunscreen was completely out of the question. So, it still applies: "Shoemaker, stick to your last."
20. Benestad threatens with lawyers
Norway is not a large and significant nation in climate research. Nevertheless, there are individual researchers who have made a name for themselves, positively or negatively. One of these is Rasmus Benestad. Because of his somewhat special form of debate, he has received a separate mention on the website of Steve McIntyre, one of two statisticians who has unmasked Michael Mann. He has probably been in debate with Benestad, and he has collected some of Benestad's statements:
I have previously mentioned the case here when he was reported to his employer, see the case of Sorte-Per, section x. Against the background of this case, The Sayings and Rasmus and other episodes with Benestad, the surprise was great when he himself threatened me with legal action. It happened when this email dropped into my inbox, January 4, 2024:
"I would like to inform you that I have contacted legal advice to check whether a reader post you just wrote (2024-02-01) is defamatory/libelous/harassing, or whether it simply shows a lack of public decency: Climate scientist Rasmus Benestad scares about the weather in 2024!
"Benestad cannot comment on the future, neither on the weather nor the climate. All of this is unscientific scaremongering, in line with other doomsday prophecies."
I will also send a copy to the public records office. thank you
Rasmus E. Benestad»
This obvious threat of legal action as a result of the article he refers to was clearly not justified. The case never came to anything, the legal advisors probably did not find objective reasons to threaten me with silence on that basis. What makes this case extra strange is that Benestad attacked two more people at exactly the same time. Then it was another debate post that had caused him to react, a reaction with the same wording.
The two are the editor of Fakta360, Einar Bordewich and university lecturer Geir Hasnes. He writes that he has also put NTNU in the copy. Here too, Benestad was not supported by his legal friends, the basis for gagging us in opposition was not present. This never became a case, but Benestad was not mature enough to inform us about this.
21. The Hiatus
After the strong El Niño in 1998, temperatures stopped rising, leveling off, and this continued for nearly 20 years, until 2018. Such a long temperature standstill attracted considerable attention. What was most striking, however, was that climate scientists put forward a theory that global heat had disappeared into the deep ocean.
First, no one had observed any increase in ocean temperature, not in any layer of the ocean. Second, climate scientists had no theory or model for how this heat transport was supposed to have occurred. The strange thing was that they placed great emphasis on the explanation, with the weaknesses mentioned above. The critics were nevertheless certain that the temperature had leveled off. This argument died down when even the IPCC stated that the temperature had leveled off for almost 20 years: The Hiatus.
In retrospect, it must be admitted that climate skeptics placed too much emphasis on the flattening, it was temporary, and according to Roy Spencer (UAH), we have a temperature trend of 0.15˚C per 10 years, which has been going on since 1979.
22. El Nino
El Niño, or actually the ENSO system, is a weather phenomenon at the equator. It includes a warm (El Niño) and a cold (La Nina) phase. The phase involves a reversal of the ocean water, from cold to warm. In sum, the system is kept at the same temperature, so that this does not affect the global temperature or climate permanently.
What is striking and completely unprofessional is that climate scientists in Norway have consistently mentioned El Niño, at the same time as they have mentioned high temperatures. El Niño has consistently been mentioned in such contexts, despite the fact that El Niño did not permanently affect the global climate. The use of El Niño in this context can be suspected of being premeditated. El Niño leads to a temporary increase in temperature, which can be seen in the attached graph from Roy Spencer (UAH). These are temperature variations that affect the global temperature, but only temporarily. As a result of the subsequent cooling La Nina, the system is brought back to its starting point. This means that El Niño leads to annual variations in temperature, but this limited influence is most often not mentioned when high temperatures are to be discussed. And especially not when discussing the very extreme global effects.
When asked directly, they answer that they are of course aware that the ENSO system does not permanently affect the climate. But they describe the phenomenon in such a way that it can be perceived as such.
23. Climate modeling is impossible
In AR3, the IPCC stated that the climate was a chaotic, non-linear system that could not be modelled. This meant that it was not possible to say anything about the future climate, especially not as far ahead as 2100. Despite this, models and statements about the future have been almost a
trademark of the IPCC. The history of models is a tale of models that have erred on the side of exaggeration and, as a result of the IPCC's statements, have had no scientific credibility.
24. World-leading scientists withdrew from cooperation with the IPCC
One of the consequences of the fraud that the IPCC represents in the climate issue is that 46 of the world's leading scientists in the field of climate withdrew from collaborating with the IPCC in 2023. The list of these 46, with reasons for the decision, can be found here:
The IPCC has not commented on this at all. This is of course embarrassing, and most comfortable not to talk about. The rest of us probably won't notice the difference either. The IPCC has probably never taken objections into account. That is the trademark of the climate panel.
25. Deafening Silence
The deafening silence reigns over what climate scientists don't care about. Here are examples of issues that are almost never commented on:
1. NIPCC
2. The annual reports from GWPF
3. The CLINTEL report
4. Nobel Prize winners' statement: Last year's Nobel Prize winner in physics: - There is no climate crisis
5. The cooperation between the UN and Google (Language Police): UN top boasts about how they control search results on Google
6. Climate The Movie
7. The Nobel Prize
8. The Met Office scam
9. Humans contribute no more than 0.2% to the "greenhouse effect"
10. The measuring stations are old and poorly maintained. Will this denial of knowledge never end?